Blakeslee’s bid for the governor’s office?

August 10, 2012

Sam Blakeslee said he was putting political aspirations aside and planned to work at a nonprofit focused on promoting common-sense solutions to big policy problems vexing Sacramento. [LATimes]

However, an early strategic plan for the California Reform Institute shows a different goal, “Devise and execute a plan that makes Blakeslee a politically viable candidate for Republican statewide office in 2014,” according to a review by the LA Times.

And while Blakeslee has said he does not plan to run again for public office, he has collected $23,000 this year in a campaign account for the 2014 treasurer’s race.

The California Reform Institute’s nonprofit category allows for limited political activity if the entity promotes “social welfare,” according to IRS regulations. Many politicians have used non-profit organizations to promote policy agendas, raise money for their travel and fund athletic tournaments and other events popular with voters.

Even so, in June, the IRS stripped the tax-exempt status from another think tank also run by a politician. The IRS concluded that the organization’s activities, while not explicitly campaign oriented, dovetailed too closely with its founder’s political agenda, the LA Times said.

28 Comments

Sam Blakeslee went to Sacramento as a nice guy and came home as a nice guy but a 100% politician. He is just like the rest of them and will tell you for the most part what you want to hear, he is very smooth at it. In today’s political atmosphere he has become one of them. With that said he is probably just as good as anyone else who might run for governor nothing really special to brag about.
It’s a sad time in America that good qualified people will not run for office because of all of the corruption that exists in all levels of government.

Is there anyway to access where politicians donations come from? Ideally, a website. If not, I’m guessing that the FOIA process would have to be gone through?

I’d like to see a list of who has contributed what and how much to Blakeslee’s campaign. I think there might be some real eye openers concering contributors from SLO. Any advice on the easiest way to access info?

Sam is a great guy, but the initial startegic plan is clearly the work of Christine Robertson, whose blind ambition is notorious. Putting her in charge of any of his future endeavors would be very unwise.

Blakeslee is great at one thing, that’s for sure: getting voters to blindly shift blame for unethical actions from Blakeslee to–well, anyone or anything else.

Blakeslee is the captain of his organization, California Reform Institute. He–not Christine Robertson–is responsible for the blatant hypocrisy and lack of ethics of the first danged organization he headed after he left political office….an organization that is supposed to be a “nonprofit focused on promoting common-sense solutions to big policy problems vexing Sacramento.”

The details of the LATimes article (url in the CCN article, above), paints a pretty clear picture of a two-faced, corrupt politician.

An early “Strategic Plan” for the nonprofit reviewed by The Times, however, lays out a different goal: “Devise and execute a plan that makes Blakeslee a politically viable candidate for Republican statewide office in 2014.”
The July 2011 document maps out how the institute’s policy proposals would be a vehicle to “create messenger credibility” needed to make “a Blakeslee gubernatorial bid feasible.” It suggests the state senator, whose standing as a moderate makes him a rare GOP politician with statewide appeal, spend his final months in the Legislature grabbing the media spotlight with bills intended to provoke Democrats.
The plan was never meant for public consumption, and now it could be a legal liability. The IRS has tended to consider boosting the political prospects of a candidate an unacceptable mission for a nonprofit, which taxpayers subsidize….
The senator’s blueprint, she said, suggests the California Reform Institute was designed as “a political campaign with a long view.”

That is so hypocritical, it is approaching the “Adam Hill” territory.

Wake up. Blakeslee ain’t the Baby Jesus. He’s a politician, and he pulled a bait-and-switch right out of the gate, after he left the legislature.

Sam should run as an Independent. The Republican brand is so stained that anyone with an (R) after their name will be mud for years to come.National approval ratings of the GOP has been under 20% for months. This is a minority party that will be extinct in most of the country within twenty years or less. Their reflexive do-nothingness, obstruction, unwillingness to advance or accept science and fact, and the plain stupidity of a majority of their members makes the end of this degenerative faction an inevitability.

A political party’s brand is formed by its leadership and the actions of its politicians.

IMO, there is nothing more “staining” or “tainting” of a politician and a political party than their willingness to pull a bait-and-switch scam on the voters.

If we cannot trust politicians to perform on their promises, then there is ZERO reason to vote. The power we have over the politicians we elect is the retroactive power of voting them out of office in the next election. Until then, during their time in office, they can pull whatever crap they want, break every political promise they made, and we are virtually powerless to stop it.

Oh, yea, the “recall.” It should make any sane voter want to cry every time they think how many bait-and-switch politicians have screwed over the voters compared to how many of those politicians were recalled from office.

In the very large city of Los Angeles, the LATimes is very much like CCN: they cover the stories and out the sacred-cow politicians that no one else will.

They outed the City of Bell scandal, and at least four similar city scandals in the LA area. I sincerely doubt the State would have investigated the City of Bell if it was not for the LATimes Pulitzer-Prize-winning LATimes coverage.

I don’t see it the same way and find it insulting to CCN. CCN is fair and balanced. I see them going after both sides equally. I DON’T see that with the L.A. times at all. Did they get Bell, yes but that wasn’t what I said. I said fair and balanced in regards to politics. That is what the meaning is usually when applied to reporting.

Because he pulled a bait-and-switch scam when he left office, representing himself as going to do one thing, while he already had plans to do the exact opposite.

Blakeslee’s little bait-and-switch scam–which was not meant to be seen by the public– is now not only a political liability, according to the LATimes article, it looks like it is an IRS liability, too:

“The plan was never meant for public consumption, and now it could be a legal liability. The IRS has tended to consider boosting the political prospects of a candidate an unacceptable mission for a nonprofit, which taxpayers subsidize….
The senator’s blueprint, she [[Frances Hill, a professor at the University of Miami School of Law and a national authority on the use of certain types of nonprofits, such as Blakeslee’s.]] said, suggests the California Reform Institute was designed as “a political campaign with a long view.”

Face it. From the very beginning he planned his bait-and-switch scam, and now it has been outed.

What is distressing is the number of people who are treating him like they did Ronald Reagan–buying the two-bit political hustle and, even when it is outed as a scam, they continue to buy his song-and-dance.

It is the mindset of a 13-year-old that enables them to worship celebrities, believing whatever self-serving, manipulative pap the celebrities feed them, even when evidence proves the celebrities are scamming.

As my own nephew–raised in a home where Elvis Still Is The King, said when, at age 11, found out that drug-addicted Elvis had died from a drug overdose and suffocating on his own vomit, all while sitting on a toilet:

“No, it is NOT true, because he’s The King, and even if it is true, it is only because he was a very, very lonely man and bad people let him do it.”

By your mindset no one would qualify. Politicans running for and already in office quite frequently say they will not run again, then next thing you know……….Our current Presdient said the same thing, as has other past Presidents. Am I happy about it? No, but you pick your battles. This isn’t a hill I’m going to die on. It is a big NOTHING!! I don’t have the naivete of one like a child to think the world is a big wonderful place with nothing but perfect people all around.

If we go by your standards, we will NEVER have anyone quilify to run for office.